Charles Hinshaw wrote:
>
> The arguments that I have
> seen still mistake the the visual display of an element with the meaning
> of that element - confusing underlinedness (which has no meaning) with
> meaningful elements that whose meanings are conveyed visually through
> underlines.
Indeed. I also don't think examples from print style guides (or print
style guides that have simply been ported one to one to the web) are
helpful as use cases. In print, the visual presentation is the only way
to mark up meaning. Through habit/tradition, readers have learned to
infer semantics from particular visual presentations and, most of all,
context. This doesn't have to be the case for HTML, where meaning can
potentially be marked up far more unequivocally (even if, in the end,
the visual presentation via css then reduces it to the familiar
bold/italic/underline distinctions).
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________